You are on page 1of 2

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION vs. MARLYN NAZARENO et al.

G.R. No. 164156


September 26, 2006

Facts:

Petitioner, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN), employed the services of Respondents,


Nazareno, Gerzon and Lerasan as Production Assistants (PAs) on various dates. Respondents were
assigned to the news and public affairs section for various radio programs in the Cebu Broadcasting
Station. ABS-CBN and Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement dated
December 19,1996, effective during the period from December 11, 1996 to December 11, 1999.
However, ABS-CBN refused to recognize PAs as part of this bargaining unit, thus respondents were not
include in the CBA.

On October 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment Status,
Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and
13th Month Pay with Damages against the petitioner before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter directed the
parties to submit their respective position papers. However, upon failure to do so, the petition was
denied. Respondents then filed a an Earnest Motion to Refile Complaint with Motion to Admit Position
Paper and Motion to Submit Case For Resolution. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the
respondents, and declared that they were regular employees of petitioner as such, they were awarded
monetary benefits. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but CA dismissed it.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondents should be considered as regular employees of petitioner, ABS-CBN.

Case for Complainant Employee:

Respondents in this case employed as PAs of petitioner, a broadcasting network, maintained that they
should be entitled to the benefits therein reflected in the CBA for they are considered to be regular
employees. Respondents insisted that they belonged to a work pool from which petitioner chose
persons to be given specific assignments at its discretion, and were thus under its direct supervision and
control regardless of nomenclature.

Case for Respondent Company:

ABS-CBN alleged in its position paper that the respondents were PAs who basically assist in the conduct
of a particular program ran by an anchor or talent. Among their duties include monitoring and receiving
incoming calls from listeners and field reporters and calls of news sources; generally, they perform leg
work for the anchors during a program or a particular production. They are considered in the industry as
program employees in that, as distinguished from regular or station employees, they are basically
engaged by the station for a particular or specific program broadcasted by the radio station.
Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court through Justice Callejo, Sr. declared that the respondents are regular employees of
ABS-CBN. It was held that a person who has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of the
nature of the activity performed or whether work is continuous or intermittent, should be considered as
regular as long as the activity for which that person is employed exists. The reason for this being that a
customary appointment is not indispensable before one may be formally declared as having attained
regular status.

The Court further held that the presumption should be that when the work done is an integral part of
the regular business of the employer and when the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an
independent business or professional service, such work is a regular employment of such employee and
not an independent contractor. As regular employees, respondents are entitled to the benefits granted
to all other regular employees of petitioner under the CBA . Besides, only talent-artists were excluded
from the CBA and not production assistants who are regular employees of the respondents. Moreover,
under Article 1702 of the New Civil Code: In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts
shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.

You might also like